>>José Cárdenas:
Tonight on "Horizon", the Governor signs a bill restricting teen drivers. Two political types go head-to-head on issues that affect Arizona in our regular Monday feature, "One-on-One". And a conversation with the man who discovered the quark and won a Nobel Prize. Next on "Horizon".

>>Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by contributions from the Friends of Eight, members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

>>José Cárdenas:
Good evening, and thanks for joining us tonight on "Horizon", I'm José Cárdenas. The United States Supreme court today upheld Jeffrey Landrigan's death sentence. Landrigan was convicted in 1989 for killing Chester Dyer in Dyer's Phoenix apartment. The High Court's 5-to-4 decision reversed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' conclusion that Landrigan might not have been represented well by his original defense attorney.

>>José Cárdenas:
Today, Governor Janet Napolitano signed into law a bill that will restrict when teenagers may drive, and who they may have in their vehicles. The changes will take effect july 1st of next year. Joining me now to talk about the new law, the sponsor of the bill in the legislature, Representative John McComish, the Majority Whip in the [State] House. Representative McComish, thans for joining us on "Horizon".

>>John McComish:
Thank you for having me, I appreciate it.

>>José Cárdenas:
Now, this particular piece of legislation, why now? What was the need?

>>John McComish:
OK, well, for some time, AAA has been pushing the fact that 45 out of the 50 states have some type of graduated driver's license for teens, new drivers. 45 out of 50 states, Arizona being one of the five that did not. And they had some data that shows that teenage drivers, if there are some restrictions on number of people in the car, some restrictions on nighttime driving, that it actually improves safety and saves lives. On average, 20\% fewer accidents and fatalities in states that have those restrictions.

>>José Cárdenas:
Do we have any Arizona-specific data that supported the need for this legislation?

>>John McComish:
The Arizona-specific data that we had showed that 74\% of the accidents with teenage drivers had other than the teenage driver, him or herself, being injured. So it's not only a bill to protect the driver, but even moreso, a bill that protects those other people that are on the road.

>>José Cárdenas:
Now, this legislation is going to make a lot of teenagers unhappy. What else will it be doing?

>>John McComish:
OK. Well, it will make the teenagers unhappy, but only for six months, and we think that's a modest reform. Where the teens, it will make them happy they can get their learner's permit a month earlier. So that should make them happy. They will have to spend an additional five hours learning as a learning driver. That's why we added the month to the learning time so they can get their learner's permit actually seven months before they turn 16. And they're required to spend 30 hours on the road with an experienced driver, five of those hours have to be nighttime.

>>José Cárdenas:
To get their driver's -- to get their learner's permit.

>>John McComish:
Yes. That's one aspect of it. To get their learner's permit, basically they have to spend more time practice driving.

>>José Cárdenas:
Then when they get their license, it's a new category. License category "G", as I understand.

>>John McComish:
That's correct. It has new restrictions. It's a graduated license. And one aspect of it is that the teens, for the first six months that they have their license, cannot drive between midnight and 5:00 AM. there are some exceptions to that. If there's an authorized school activity, or if they have an employment that's going to get them off work after midnight, they're allowed to do that. So, there's some intelligent exceptions to it. But it restricts the nighttime driving. And the other, really probably the most important aspect of the bill, it restricts the number of young people that can be in the car with a brand-new driver.

>>José Cárdenas:
Now, what's the rationale for the six months? Why that particular time period?

>>John McComish
OK. Well it, gives them time, more time -- they have six months before they get their driver's license as a learner driver, and then another six months, after they get their driver's license where they're a little more restricted. And we felt that that total of a year's time would just give them a little more time, a little more seasoning. And we were concerned with brand-new drivers having, you know, a car full of teenagers and the problems that that might cause. The data showed that it was an exponentially more dangerous the more teens that were in the car with the new driver. So we restricted it so there can be one teen along with the driver, and that does not -- and we don't exclude family members. So there can be siblings but in addition to that one other teen for six months until that driver gets enough experience under his or her belt.

>>José Cárdenas:
And then, as I understand, on the time -- on the hours of operation, the exceptions for going to work, sanctioned religious events and so.

>>John McComish:
Right, right, exactly.

>>José Cárdenas:
How is this going to be enforced?

>>John McComish:
OK. It will be enforced. It's like the seatbelt law. We won't have Law Enforcement pulling teenagers over because they look like they're young, but--

>>José Cárdenas:
They have to pull them over for something else.

>>John McComish:
They have to pull them over for another violation. Or -- then that would go into effect just like the seat belt law is now.

>>José Cárdenas:
Representative McComish, we have about 30 seconds left. Were you surprised the Governor signed this bill?

>>John McComish:
No, I was not. I was very pleased that the Governor signed it. I thought that she would. It's a modest step in the right direction. And it will save lives in the State of Arizona.

>>José Cárdenas:
Representative McComish, congratulations on your success, and thanks for joining us on "Horizon".

>>John McComish:
Thank you for having me.

>>José Cárdenas:
Every Monday evening, we feature two political experts going "One-on-One" on issues that affect the State. Tonight, talking about the budget, day labor and more, a partner at the law firm, "Coppersmith, Gordon, Schermer and Brockelman", Andy Gordon, and one of the founders of the Red Sky Group, a political consulting firm here in the Valley, Tom Dalton.

>>Andy Gordon:
Tom, why don't we talk first about the budget? What is it about the budget process that Mr. Weiers doesn't get? He cannot get a budget out of the House. Right now, they've got a budget in the Senate, where they've got 24-26 votes. President Bee has run a very open process in the Senate. He's included Democrats, Republicans, leadership. They've got a budget that the Governor can support. And what this looks like is Weiers is going to do what he always does is be there like a little boy who's all mad with his cheeks puffed out going "no, no, no, no," and ultimately they will pass the budget that Senate and Governor have agreed to. What's going on here?

>>Tom Dalton:
Well, I guess I'd like to throw it back at you. What is it about Governor Napolitano that she supports bipartisanship when it's a bill she wants to support? Now, I can't speak for Speaker Weiers, and I don't know when he gets a tantrum and does this. I will say this, though: he got three Democrats on board, and that's bipartisanship. He reached out. They got onboard. And the Governor simply excoriated them this past weekend. And I guess, you know, what's wrong with bipartisanship? I thought the Speaker was supposed to reach out to Democrats.

>>Andy Gordon:
The Speaker doesn't have enough votes to get his budget out of the House. He can't get 30 votes. With or without a couple of Democrats, he doesn't have a budget. He doesn't have a budget primarily because the things that everyone wants aren't in there. And whereas I said President Bee has done a great job. I mean, he's got funding in there for the Healthcare Group, which the House has zero for Healthcare Group, that denies 26,000 people in the State insurance. They've got teacher raises. They've got money for highways. The medical school is funded. The House doesn't even fund the Veterans' Home, where Weiers was screaming "bloody murder!". But there's no money there.

>>Tom Dalton:
Speaker Weiers is a lovable little fuzz ball. [laughs] OK. Onto day labor. Now, Governor Napolitano, she vetoed the Day Labor Bill. And I have to say, I'm usually very impressed by her ability to spin things. I think she's very good when it comes to the politics side of things, sometimes, during an election year. She's good at going down to the border, and standing behind President Bush and standing next to JD Hayworth and acting tough on illegal immigration. But this -- I was a bit surprised she vetoed this bill, and I'll tell you why. Because to me, it's not only a bill that's designed to deal with the illegal immigration problem in a, you know, in a very basic sense, but it's also a pro-business situation. When she says that she doesn't feel like this problem exists when you have day laborers who basically stand in front of supply stores and lobby for work, temporary work and this sort of thing, she says she doesn't believe this exists. And I guess what I want to ask the Governor is, you know, has she been to Home Depot? Has she taken a cruise down Ocotillo in the heart of Queen Creek and looked at the day laborers everywhere? I just wonder what world Janet Ren -- Janet Napolitano is living in, and --

>>Andy Gordon:
The interesting thing about this Day Labor Bill is, day labor is never mentioned in the bill. It's a phrase that's not -- this is a bill about people trying to find jobs. And I thought that was fundamentally what we're about. People who want jobs enough that they're willing to stand out in the heat in the morning, and try to get people to hire them. I think that's something we should be for.

>>Tom Dalton:
But -- but who? I have to ask, who is it that's standing out? I mean, these aren't MBA students standing out on the streets doing this.

>>Andy Gordon:
Obviously it's not MBAs. It's the people who want work so badly that they'll stand out in the hot morning and get it. Rather than discourage these people, we ought to be encouraging them. But, you know, we could probably go -- let's talk about something where we don't have to worry about numbers, where we don't have to worry about policy. Let's talk about the walking dead: Congressman Rick Renzi.

>>Tom Dalton:
Oh, yeah.

>>Andy Gordon:
It seems to me that big question on Congressman Renzi is, is he going to resign before his term is out? And if he is, who's going to take his place? Now, I'm hearing there's a huge amount of heat on him from the Republicans to step down early. But you're the Republican.

>> Tom Dalton:
Yes, I am. I don't know. I mean, he still is a sitting Congressman. It's a bit premature to start saying he's going to step down. I do think there's a lot of posturing going on. I think there's some good Republicans who will be ready to jump in should he resign. I don't know what he gains by resigning. I think the likely scenario may be that he stays in office and has a primary challenge, and he may well lose that primary. But I'm not sure what he gains by resigning. There are a lot of credible Republicans out there who are looking to run for his seat. You have Tim O'Halloran--

>>Andy Gordon:
Tom O'Halloran

>>Tom Dalton:
Tom O'Halloran. Steve Pearce, who I think is an interesting candidate. He's a GOP activist, and he's a rancher. He has a lot of money, and if this were to be a special election, the ability to raise money quickly is very important. But I think that those Republicans, we'll see what happens. We know that right now, he appears to be weathering the storm a little bit. I mean, Congressmen come under investigation all the time. Some survive, some of them don't. Bill Jefferson of Louisiana is still in office.

>>Andy Gordon:
He certainly is. What I'm hearing is -- and I don't do criminal defense work. But what I hear is that the biggest chip he has is his office. So he's not going to resign. It's not part of the deal to take care of the problem. But assuming that happens, I mean, you do. On the Democratic side, you got Steve Owens, you've got the head of DEQ, who knows that district extremely well. Ellen Simon, who ran last time, Ann Kirkpatrick, the Mayor of Winslow, a couple of more lawyers, maybe Harry Mitchell's brother. But I think the key is -- if there is a fast primary, because it's incredibly fast primary if it happens -- is the ability to raise money real fast.

>>Tom Dalton:
Absolutely.

>>Andy Gordon:
And on the Democratic side, that give as real advantage to Owens and Simon. Owens who's been shown in the past to raise a lot. And Simon who can write her own check.

>>Tom Dalton:
Jim Pederson who also --

>>Andy Gordon:
Jim's not going to run.

>>Tom Dalton:
He says he isn't, but he is a walking ATM Machine.

>>Andy Gordon:
He -- Jim's been very generous. But I'm pretty confident Jim's not going to run. Paul Johnson's name has been out there. I'm pretty confident Paul's not going to run. But it will be wide open.

>>Tom Dalton:
Well, we'll just have to wait and see. Well, what's next coming up? From what I'm hearing, as far as this whole budget showdown is going, it may not just be the three Democrats who bolt. Republican leadership is going to target several other Dems who they feel have a chance at getting the support. The House bipartisan plan as well, they do have three Democrats. I can't mention any names, but we'll see what happens.

>>Andy Gordon:
I'm sure those Democrats are very happy you don't mention their names, because my hunch is it never happened, and this is more of a Weiers bluff. I think the budget is the thing to watch. I think what we're going to see is the budget come out of the Senate first. I think it will pass with 24-25 votes. Three quarters of the Senate. It's just a matter of time until they roll over Weiers as they've already done in the past.

>>José Cárdenas:
Arizona State University has a new cosmic think-tank known as "Beyond: the center for fundamental concepts in science". Recently, the inaugural lecture for the center was Murray Gell-Mann. Gell-Mann won the 1969 Nobel Prize in Physics for identifying Quarks, the fundamental building blocks of the atom. He was also a Caltech colleague of fellow Nobel Prize winner, Richard Feynman, with whom he had a competitive relationship. Larry Lemmons spoke with Gell-Mann during the physicist's visit.

>>Larry Lemmons:
In your book "The Quark and the Jaguar", you were talking about the simple Quark being inside an atom, the complex the Jaguar running through the jungle. Could you sort of describe why that is applicable to Quantum Mechanics?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Just to show the contrast between an elementary building block of all matter. Each kind of elementary particle is a basic building block of matter everywhere in the universe. And comparatively simple in the sense that it doesn't take a long screed to describe it. The jaguar, however, is something with a great deal of specialized information about it. Coming from all sorts of accidents of evolution over a long period of time. And as an example of something quite complex.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Would you say that those two ideas and something that is simple, is that something that we yearn for in our descriptions of the universe? Something simple but we come across the complex constantly and don't always understand it?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Well, the fundamental laws, I believe to be simple. And I believe that complexity, as I think I argued in that book, complexity comes from the accumulation of accidents. Because the history of the universe is predetermined by the fundamental laws which I believe to be quite simple. And unimaginably long sequence of chance events or accidents. And the results of all those accidents are then incorporated into a complex entity like a jaguar.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Do you think that's why it's very difficult sometimes for people to understand Quantum Physics in the sense that you're looking at the Quark as being something very simple. But I think the general la person is going to look at Quantum Physics and find it very complex.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
In our everyday lives , we deal mostly with fairly heavy objects on the scale of atomic or nuclear objects. And for these heavy objects, the special teachers of Quantum Mechanics are not very conspicuous. So we're accustomed to so-called classical physics in our every day life, and to deal with the underlying Quantum Physics is not so easy for us because we're accustomed to the other. But another thing that's a problem is that most people who write and speak about Quantum Mechanics or teach it, even a lot of famous scientists, describe it in a way that's unnecessarily confusing. And it's just sad. It started back with the discoverers of Quantum Mechanics in the 1920's. Eisenberg and Borg and so on, formulated this "Copenhagen Interpretation" of Quantum Mechanics and certain ways of talking about it that makes it sound quite crazy. It isn't crazy. It's the way things are.

>>Larry Lemmons:
And Quantum Physics is growing too as well. I think in the beginning, they didn't know anything about superstring, for example. That is just something that has grown relatively recently.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Well, that's a conjecture, of course. It's a conjecture that is very bold and very exciting. And for thirty years or so, a number of theoreticians have tried to construct the long-desired Unified Theory of all of the elementary particles of all the forces of nature using a basis in Super String Theory. So far, they haven't succeeded in generating a complete, self-consistent theory that can be compared with nature and checked out. They haven't really done that yet.

>>Larry Lemmons:
So when you say Unified Field Theory, could you just talk a little bit about what that is.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Well, it would be a theory that unifies the descriptions of all the elementary particles.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Would explain all things?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
And no, it wouldn't explain all things. But we'll get to that in a moment. But it would describe the whole of elementary particle physics. The elementary particles are the forces of nature would all be completely described in an unified manner. That's what everybody has hoped for.

>>Larry Lemmons:
What are some of the tenets of that that might be unusual to the people, when they are talking about the Super String Theory.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Let me say one good thing about Super String Theory. It has a great advantage. If the long-desired Unified Theories of all the particles and all the forces is really found and is based on ideas from Super String Theory, it's one good thing. And that is that in the suitable approximation, it would predict Einstein's General Relativistic Theory of Gravitation,which would be something. Not only that, but it would predict it within Quantum Mechanics. It does, I should say, predict it within Quantum Mechanics. And without the preposterous infinite corrections that plague all the other attempts to unify General Relativity in Quantum Mechanics.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
That's one thing. He said a number of different things. Yes, he was not happy with it. It's funny because he contributed so much toward the original -- toward the early research that led to it. But when it finally came, he was unhappy with it. Part of that may have to do with what I was mentioning before, the fact that Quantum Mechanics is usually described in an unnecessarily confusing manner. And he may have been reacting to some degree to that.

>>Larry Lemmons:
In your own work, I believe you worked with Richard Feynman also?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
He had an office almost next door to mine for 33 years.

>>Larry Lemmons:
What was it like working with him? And some of the brilliant people that you've been around?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Well, it's great to work with brilliant people. And initially, Dick and I did a lot of nice things together. But I eventually decided that I would prefer not to do a lot of work with him. Because to him, everything seemed to be personal. It was a question of showing how bright he was. Not that anybody ever had any doubt that he was bright. He certainly didn't need to keep showing it. But somehow that was the main point. Whereas in my case, I wanted to get the answer. I wanted to see the answer. And I loved the idea of collaboration, because when I was a child, I had a big brother who taught me everything I knew. But it was very different. Dick wanted to compete always. So well, it was all right. I could compete. But sometimes it was not what I really wanted.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Could you--

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
He was a very great scientist, besides being a generator of anecdotes. I mean, most of his energy went into generating anecdotes about himself.

>>Larry Lemmons:
What was a Feynman anecdote?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
At the same time he was a great, great scientist. Oh, for example, in the very early days back in -- what was it, 1955 or '56 when I first arrived at Caltech, he would come in with a jacket and a shirt and tie, usually a white shirt. And then he would hang up the jacket in his office and take off the tie and hang that up. And then at lunchtime, he would go, sometimes, to the Faculty Club, where they required the jacket and the tie and the shirt. But he would leave his jacket and tie back in the office. When he arrive the at the Faculty Club, he would go to the cloak room and find one of the old, torn jackets and one of the loud ties that people had left there for those who showed up without that crucial equipment. Then he would put those on.

>>Larry Lemmons:
He preferred to wear those, probably.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Yes, that was one way of generating an anecdote.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Sure. Has it been gratifying over the years, that people hold you in such high esteem because of the work that you've done and the people who have come after you who have built on that work?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Well, it's very nice to be part of such a thing. If I had my life to live over, I think I would pay more attention to that, to building a school, for example. I have never done that, really. I have had some students who were terrific, and some of them famous. At least one of them won the Swedish Prize all by himself. But they didn't learn much of it from me. [laughter]

>>Larry Lemmons:
Well, Dr. Murray Gell-Mann, thank you so much for talking with us.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
You're very welcome. It's a great pleasure. It's a great pleasure to talk with the PBS viewers.

>>Merry Lucero:
Our state is the fastest-growing in the nation. But ranks among the lowest for physicians to care for its population. We look at our doctor shortage, and efforts to solve the problem. Plus, it began as a dream of a resort hotel in exotic cactus garden but became a place once shrouded in mystery. Tovrea Castle, Tuesday at 7:00, on "Horizon".

>>José Cárdenas:
Wednesday, we'll learn more about tax incentives put into the state budget to help people save for college. Thursday, we'll see how people are learning to capitalize on the super bowl. Friday don't forget to join us for the Journalists' Roundtable. That's the Monday edition of "Horizon". I'm José Cárdenas. Thanks for sharing your evening with us.

>>Announcer:
If you have comments about "Horizon", please contact us at the addresses listed on your screen. Your name and comments may be used on a future edition of "Horizon".

>>Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by contributions from the Friends of Eight, members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

One on One

Every Monday, two political antagonists go head to head on issues that affect Arizonans. Tonight, Andy Gordon of the law firm Coppersmith, Gordon, Schermer and Brockleman debates Tom Dalton of The Red Sky Group, a political consulting firm.

Guests:

John McComish - State Representative, Majority Whip in the House

Andy Gordon - Coppersmith, Gordon, Schermer and Brockelman

Tom Dalton - One of the founders of the political consulting firm, Red Sky Group

>>José Cárdenas:
Tonight on "Horizon", the Governor signs a bill restricting teen drivers. Two political types go head-to-head on issues that affect Arizona in our regular Monday feature, "One-on-One". And a conversation with the man who discovered the quark and won a Nobel Prize. Next on "Horizon".

>>Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by contributions from the Friends of Eight, members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

>>José Cárdenas:
Good evening, and thanks for joining us tonight on "Horizon", I'm José Cárdenas. The United States Supreme court today upheld Jeffrey Landrigan's death sentence. Landrigan was convicted in 1989 for killing Chester Dyer in Dyer's Phoenix apartment. The High Court's 5-to-4 decision reversed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' conclusion that Landrigan might not have been represented well by his original defense attorney.

>>José Cárdenas:
Today, Governor Janet Napolitano signed into law a bill that will restrict when teenagers may drive, and who they may have in their vehicles. The changes will take effect july 1st of next year. Joining me now to talk about the new law, the sponsor of the bill in the legislature, Representative John McComish, the Majority Whip in the [State] House. Representative McComish, thans for joining us on "Horizon".

>>John McComish:
Thank you for having me, I appreciate it.

>>José Cárdenas:
Now, this particular piece of legislation, why now? What was the need?

>>John McComish:
OK, well, for some time, AAA has been pushing the fact that 45 out of the 50 states have some type of graduated driver's license for teens, new drivers. 45 out of 50 states, Arizona being one of the five that did not. And they had some data that shows that teenage drivers, if there are some restrictions on number of people in the car, some restrictions on nighttime driving, that it actually improves safety and saves lives. On average, 20\% fewer accidents and fatalities in states that have those restrictions.

>>José Cárdenas:
Do we have any Arizona-specific data that supported the need for this legislation?

>>John McComish:
The Arizona-specific data that we had showed that 74\% of the accidents with teenage drivers had other than the teenage driver, him or herself, being injured. So it's not only a bill to protect the driver, but even moreso, a bill that protects those other people that are on the road.

>>José Cárdenas:
Now, this legislation is going to make a lot of teenagers unhappy. What else will it be doing?

>>John McComish:
OK. Well, it will make the teenagers unhappy, but only for six months, and we think that's a modest reform. Where the teens, it will make them happy they can get their learner's permit a month earlier. So that should make them happy. They will have to spend an additional five hours learning as a learning driver. That's why we added the month to the learning time so they can get their learner's permit actually seven months before they turn 16. And they're required to spend 30 hours on the road with an experienced driver, five of those hours have to be nighttime.

>>José Cárdenas:
To get their driver's -- to get their learner's permit.

>>John McComish:
Yes. That's one aspect of it. To get their learner's permit, basically they have to spend more time practice driving.

>>José Cárdenas:
Then when they get their license, it's a new category. License category "G", as I understand.

>>John McComish:
That's correct. It has new restrictions. It's a graduated license. And one aspect of it is that the teens, for the first six months that they have their license, cannot drive between midnight and 5:00 AM. there are some exceptions to that. If there's an authorized school activity, or if they have an employment that's going to get them off work after midnight, they're allowed to do that. So, there's some intelligent exceptions to it. But it restricts the nighttime driving. And the other, really probably the most important aspect of the bill, it restricts the number of young people that can be in the car with a brand-new driver.

>>José Cárdenas:
Now, what's the rationale for the six months? Why that particular time period?

>>John McComish
OK. Well it, gives them time, more time -- they have six months before they get their driver's license as a learner driver, and then another six months, after they get their driver's license where they're a little more restricted. And we felt that that total of a year's time would just give them a little more time, a little more seasoning. And we were concerned with brand-new drivers having, you know, a car full of teenagers and the problems that that might cause. The data showed that it was an exponentially more dangerous the more teens that were in the car with the new driver. So we restricted it so there can be one teen along with the driver, and that does not -- and we don't exclude family members. So there can be siblings but in addition to that one other teen for six months until that driver gets enough experience under his or her belt.

>>José Cárdenas:
And then, as I understand, on the time -- on the hours of operation, the exceptions for going to work, sanctioned religious events and so.

>>John McComish:
Right, right, exactly.

>>José Cárdenas:
How is this going to be enforced?

>>John McComish:
OK. It will be enforced. It's like the seatbelt law. We won't have Law Enforcement pulling teenagers over because they look like they're young, but--

>>José Cárdenas:
They have to pull them over for something else.

>>John McComish:
They have to pull them over for another violation. Or -- then that would go into effect just like the seat belt law is now.

>>José Cárdenas:
Representative McComish, we have about 30 seconds left. Were you surprised the Governor signed this bill?

>>John McComish:
No, I was not. I was very pleased that the Governor signed it. I thought that she would. It's a modest step in the right direction. And it will save lives in the State of Arizona.

>>José Cárdenas:
Representative McComish, congratulations on your success, and thanks for joining us on "Horizon".

>>John McComish:
Thank you for having me.

>>José Cárdenas:
Every Monday evening, we feature two political experts going "One-on-One" on issues that affect the State. Tonight, talking about the budget, day labor and more, a partner at the law firm, "Coppersmith, Gordon, Schermer and Brockelman", Andy Gordon, and one of the founders of the Red Sky Group, a political consulting firm here in the Valley, Tom Dalton.

>>Andy Gordon:
Tom, why don't we talk first about the budget? What is it about the budget process that Mr. Weiers doesn't get? He cannot get a budget out of the House. Right now, they've got a budget in the Senate, where they've got 24-26 votes. President Bee has run a very open process in the Senate. He's included Democrats, Republicans, leadership. They've got a budget that the Governor can support. And what this looks like is Weiers is going to do what he always does is be there like a little boy who's all mad with his cheeks puffed out going "no, no, no, no," and ultimately they will pass the budget that Senate and Governor have agreed to. What's going on here?

>>Tom Dalton:
Well, I guess I'd like to throw it back at you. What is it about Governor Napolitano that she supports bipartisanship when it's a bill she wants to support? Now, I can't speak for Speaker Weiers, and I don't know when he gets a tantrum and does this. I will say this, though: he got three Democrats on board, and that's bipartisanship. He reached out. They got onboard. And the Governor simply excoriated them this past weekend. And I guess, you know, what's wrong with bipartisanship? I thought the Speaker was supposed to reach out to Democrats.

>>Andy Gordon:
The Speaker doesn't have enough votes to get his budget out of the House. He can't get 30 votes. With or without a couple of Democrats, he doesn't have a budget. He doesn't have a budget primarily because the things that everyone wants aren't in there. And whereas I said President Bee has done a great job. I mean, he's got funding in there for the Healthcare Group, which the House has zero for Healthcare Group, that denies 26,000 people in the State insurance. They've got teacher raises. They've got money for highways. The medical school is funded. The House doesn't even fund the Veterans' Home, where Weiers was screaming "bloody murder!". But there's no money there.

>>Tom Dalton:
Speaker Weiers is a lovable little fuzz ball. [laughs] OK. Onto day labor. Now, Governor Napolitano, she vetoed the Day Labor Bill. And I have to say, I'm usually very impressed by her ability to spin things. I think she's very good when it comes to the politics side of things, sometimes, during an election year. She's good at going down to the border, and standing behind President Bush and standing next to JD Hayworth and acting tough on illegal immigration. But this -- I was a bit surprised she vetoed this bill, and I'll tell you why. Because to me, it's not only a bill that's designed to deal with the illegal immigration problem in a, you know, in a very basic sense, but it's also a pro-business situation. When she says that she doesn't feel like this problem exists when you have day laborers who basically stand in front of supply stores and lobby for work, temporary work and this sort of thing, she says she doesn't believe this exists. And I guess what I want to ask the Governor is, you know, has she been to Home Depot? Has she taken a cruise down Ocotillo in the heart of Queen Creek and looked at the day laborers everywhere? I just wonder what world Janet Ren -- Janet Napolitano is living in, and --

>>Andy Gordon:
The interesting thing about this Day Labor Bill is, day labor is never mentioned in the bill. It's a phrase that's not -- this is a bill about people trying to find jobs. And I thought that was fundamentally what we're about. People who want jobs enough that they're willing to stand out in the heat in the morning, and try to get people to hire them. I think that's something we should be for.

>>Tom Dalton:
But -- but who? I have to ask, who is it that's standing out? I mean, these aren't MBA students standing out on the streets doing this.

>>Andy Gordon:
Obviously it's not MBAs. It's the people who want work so badly that they'll stand out in the hot morning and get it. Rather than discourage these people, we ought to be encouraging them. But, you know, we could probably go -- let's talk about something where we don't have to worry about numbers, where we don't have to worry about policy. Let's talk about the walking dead: Congressman Rick Renzi.

>>Tom Dalton:
Oh, yeah.

>>Andy Gordon:
It seems to me that big question on Congressman Renzi is, is he going to resign before his term is out? And if he is, who's going to take his place? Now, I'm hearing there's a huge amount of heat on him from the Republicans to step down early. But you're the Republican.

>> Tom Dalton:
Yes, I am. I don't know. I mean, he still is a sitting Congressman. It's a bit premature to start saying he's going to step down. I do think there's a lot of posturing going on. I think there's some good Republicans who will be ready to jump in should he resign. I don't know what he gains by resigning. I think the likely scenario may be that he stays in office and has a primary challenge, and he may well lose that primary. But I'm not sure what he gains by resigning. There are a lot of credible Republicans out there who are looking to run for his seat. You have Tim O'Halloran--

>>Andy Gordon:
Tom O'Halloran

>>Tom Dalton:
Tom O'Halloran. Steve Pearce, who I think is an interesting candidate. He's a GOP activist, and he's a rancher. He has a lot of money, and if this were to be a special election, the ability to raise money quickly is very important. But I think that those Republicans, we'll see what happens. We know that right now, he appears to be weathering the storm a little bit. I mean, Congressmen come under investigation all the time. Some survive, some of them don't. Bill Jefferson of Louisiana is still in office.

>>Andy Gordon:
He certainly is. What I'm hearing is -- and I don't do criminal defense work. But what I hear is that the biggest chip he has is his office. So he's not going to resign. It's not part of the deal to take care of the problem. But assuming that happens, I mean, you do. On the Democratic side, you got Steve Owens, you've got the head of DEQ, who knows that district extremely well. Ellen Simon, who ran last time, Ann Kirkpatrick, the Mayor of Winslow, a couple of more lawyers, maybe Harry Mitchell's brother. But I think the key is -- if there is a fast primary, because it's incredibly fast primary if it happens -- is the ability to raise money real fast.

>>Tom Dalton:
Absolutely.

>>Andy Gordon:
And on the Democratic side, that give as real advantage to Owens and Simon. Owens who's been shown in the past to raise a lot. And Simon who can write her own check.

>>Tom Dalton:
Jim Pederson who also --

>>Andy Gordon:
Jim's not going to run.

>>Tom Dalton:
He says he isn't, but he is a walking ATM Machine.

>>Andy Gordon:
He -- Jim's been very generous. But I'm pretty confident Jim's not going to run. Paul Johnson's name has been out there. I'm pretty confident Paul's not going to run. But it will be wide open.

>>Tom Dalton:
Well, we'll just have to wait and see. Well, what's next coming up? From what I'm hearing, as far as this whole budget showdown is going, it may not just be the three Democrats who bolt. Republican leadership is going to target several other Dems who they feel have a chance at getting the support. The House bipartisan plan as well, they do have three Democrats. I can't mention any names, but we'll see what happens.

>>Andy Gordon:
I'm sure those Democrats are very happy you don't mention their names, because my hunch is it never happened, and this is more of a Weiers bluff. I think the budget is the thing to watch. I think what we're going to see is the budget come out of the Senate first. I think it will pass with 24-25 votes. Three quarters of the Senate. It's just a matter of time until they roll over Weiers as they've already done in the past.

>>José Cárdenas:
Arizona State University has a new cosmic think-tank known as "Beyond: the center for fundamental concepts in science". Recently, the inaugural lecture for the center was Murray Gell-Mann. Gell-Mann won the 1969 Nobel Prize in Physics for identifying Quarks, the fundamental building blocks of the atom. He was also a Caltech colleague of fellow Nobel Prize winner, Richard Feynman, with whom he had a competitive relationship. Larry Lemmons spoke with Gell-Mann during the physicist's visit.

>>Larry Lemmons:
In your book "The Quark and the Jaguar", you were talking about the simple Quark being inside an atom, the complex the Jaguar running through the jungle. Could you sort of describe why that is applicable to Quantum Mechanics?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Just to show the contrast between an elementary building block of all matter. Each kind of elementary particle is a basic building block of matter everywhere in the universe. And comparatively simple in the sense that it doesn't take a long screed to describe it. The jaguar, however, is something with a great deal of specialized information about it. Coming from all sorts of accidents of evolution over a long period of time. And as an example of something quite complex.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Would you say that those two ideas and something that is simple, is that something that we yearn for in our descriptions of the universe? Something simple but we come across the complex constantly and don't always understand it?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Well, the fundamental laws, I believe to be simple. And I believe that complexity, as I think I argued in that book, complexity comes from the accumulation of accidents. Because the history of the universe is predetermined by the fundamental laws which I believe to be quite simple. And unimaginably long sequence of chance events or accidents. And the results of all those accidents are then incorporated into a complex entity like a jaguar.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Do you think that's why it's very difficult sometimes for people to understand Quantum Physics in the sense that you're looking at the Quark as being something very simple. But I think the general la person is going to look at Quantum Physics and find it very complex.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
In our everyday lives , we deal mostly with fairly heavy objects on the scale of atomic or nuclear objects. And for these heavy objects, the special teachers of Quantum Mechanics are not very conspicuous. So we're accustomed to so-called classical physics in our every day life, and to deal with the underlying Quantum Physics is not so easy for us because we're accustomed to the other. But another thing that's a problem is that most people who write and speak about Quantum Mechanics or teach it, even a lot of famous scientists, describe it in a way that's unnecessarily confusing. And it's just sad. It started back with the discoverers of Quantum Mechanics in the 1920's. Eisenberg and Borg and so on, formulated this "Copenhagen Interpretation" of Quantum Mechanics and certain ways of talking about it that makes it sound quite crazy. It isn't crazy. It's the way things are.

>>Larry Lemmons:
And Quantum Physics is growing too as well. I think in the beginning, they didn't know anything about superstring, for example. That is just something that has grown relatively recently.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Well, that's a conjecture, of course. It's a conjecture that is very bold and very exciting. And for thirty years or so, a number of theoreticians have tried to construct the long-desired Unified Theory of all of the elementary particles of all the forces of nature using a basis in Super String Theory. So far, they haven't succeeded in generating a complete, self-consistent theory that can be compared with nature and checked out. They haven't really done that yet.

>>Larry Lemmons:
So when you say Unified Field Theory, could you just talk a little bit about what that is.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Well, it would be a theory that unifies the descriptions of all the elementary particles.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Would explain all things?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
And no, it wouldn't explain all things. But we'll get to that in a moment. But it would describe the whole of elementary particle physics. The elementary particles are the forces of nature would all be completely described in an unified manner. That's what everybody has hoped for.

>>Larry Lemmons:
What are some of the tenets of that that might be unusual to the people, when they are talking about the Super String Theory.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Let me say one good thing about Super String Theory. It has a great advantage. If the long-desired Unified Theories of all the particles and all the forces is really found and is based on ideas from Super String Theory, it's one good thing. And that is that in the suitable approximation, it would predict Einstein's General Relativistic Theory of Gravitation,which would be something. Not only that, but it would predict it within Quantum Mechanics. It does, I should say, predict it within Quantum Mechanics. And without the preposterous infinite corrections that plague all the other attempts to unify General Relativity in Quantum Mechanics.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
That's one thing. He said a number of different things. Yes, he was not happy with it. It's funny because he contributed so much toward the original -- toward the early research that led to it. But when it finally came, he was unhappy with it. Part of that may have to do with what I was mentioning before, the fact that Quantum Mechanics is usually described in an unnecessarily confusing manner. And he may have been reacting to some degree to that.

>>Larry Lemmons:
In your own work, I believe you worked with Richard Feynman also?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
He had an office almost next door to mine for 33 years.

>>Larry Lemmons:
What was it like working with him? And some of the brilliant people that you've been around?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Well, it's great to work with brilliant people. And initially, Dick and I did a lot of nice things together. But I eventually decided that I would prefer not to do a lot of work with him. Because to him, everything seemed to be personal. It was a question of showing how bright he was. Not that anybody ever had any doubt that he was bright. He certainly didn't need to keep showing it. But somehow that was the main point. Whereas in my case, I wanted to get the answer. I wanted to see the answer. And I loved the idea of collaboration, because when I was a child, I had a big brother who taught me everything I knew. But it was very different. Dick wanted to compete always. So well, it was all right. I could compete. But sometimes it was not what I really wanted.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Could you--

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
He was a very great scientist, besides being a generator of anecdotes. I mean, most of his energy went into generating anecdotes about himself.

>>Larry Lemmons:
What was a Feynman anecdote?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
At the same time he was a great, great scientist. Oh, for example, in the very early days back in -- what was it, 1955 or '56 when I first arrived at Caltech, he would come in with a jacket and a shirt and tie, usually a white shirt. And then he would hang up the jacket in his office and take off the tie and hang that up. And then at lunchtime, he would go, sometimes, to the Faculty Club, where they required the jacket and the tie and the shirt. But he would leave his jacket and tie back in the office. When he arrive the at the Faculty Club, he would go to the cloak room and find one of the old, torn jackets and one of the loud ties that people had left there for those who showed up without that crucial equipment. Then he would put those on.

>>Larry Lemmons:
He preferred to wear those, probably.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Yes, that was one way of generating an anecdote.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Sure. Has it been gratifying over the years, that people hold you in such high esteem because of the work that you've done and the people who have come after you who have built on that work?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Well, it's very nice to be part of such a thing. If I had my life to live over, I think I would pay more attention to that, to building a school, for example. I have never done that, really. I have had some students who were terrific, and some of them famous. At least one of them won the Swedish Prize all by himself. But they didn't learn much of it from me. [laughter]

>>Larry Lemmons:
Well, Dr. Murray Gell-Mann, thank you so much for talking with us.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
You're very welcome. It's a great pleasure. It's a great pleasure to talk with the PBS viewers.

>>Merry Lucero:
Our state is the fastest-growing in the nation. But ranks among the lowest for physicians to care for its population. We look at our doctor shortage, and efforts to solve the problem. Plus, it began as a dream of a resort hotel in exotic cactus garden but became a place once shrouded in mystery. Tovrea Castle, Tuesday at 7:00, on "Horizon".

>>José Cárdenas:
Wednesday, we'll learn more about tax incentives put into the state budget to help people save for college. Thursday, we'll see how people are learning to capitalize on the super bowl. Friday don't forget to join us for the Journalists' Roundtable. That's the Monday edition of "Horizon". I'm José Cárdenas. Thanks for sharing your evening with us.

>>Announcer:
If you have comments about "Horizon", please contact us at the addresses listed on your screen. Your name and comments may be used on a future edition of "Horizon".

>>Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by contributions from the Friends of Eight, members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

Teen Drivers

Governor Janet Napolitano signed a bill into law today that would restrict when and with whom teenagers would be able to drive. The sponsor of the bill in the legislature, Majority Whip, Representative John McComish is the guest.

Guests:

John McComish - State Representative, Majority Whip in the House

Andy Gordon - Coppersmith, Gordon, Schermer and Brockelman

Tom Dalton - One of the founders of the political consulting firm, Red Sky Group

>>José Cárdenas:
Tonight on "Horizon", the Governor signs a bill restricting teen drivers. Two political types go head-to-head on issues that affect Arizona in our regular Monday feature, "One-on-One". And a conversation with the man who discovered the quark and won a Nobel Prize. Next on "Horizon".

>>Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by contributions from the Friends of Eight, members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

>>José Cárdenas:
Good evening, and thanks for joining us tonight on "Horizon", I'm José Cárdenas. The United States Supreme court today upheld Jeffrey Landrigan's death sentence. Landrigan was convicted in 1989 for killing Chester Dyer in Dyer's Phoenix apartment. The High Court's 5-to-4 decision reversed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' conclusion that Landrigan might not have been represented well by his original defense attorney.

>>José Cárdenas:
Today, Governor Janet Napolitano signed into law a bill that will restrict when teenagers may drive, and who they may have in their vehicles. The changes will take effect july 1st of next year. Joining me now to talk about the new law, the sponsor of the bill in the legislature, Representative John McComish, the Majority Whip in the [State] House. Representative McComish, thans for joining us on "Horizon".

>>John McComish:
Thank you for having me, I appreciate it.

>>José Cárdenas:
Now, this particular piece of legislation, why now? What was the need?

>>John McComish:
OK, well, for some time, AAA has been pushing the fact that 45 out of the 50 states have some type of graduated driver's license for teens, new drivers. 45 out of 50 states, Arizona being one of the five that did not. And they had some data that shows that teenage drivers, if there are some restrictions on number of people in the car, some restrictions on nighttime driving, that it actually improves safety and saves lives. On average, 20\% fewer accidents and fatalities in states that have those restrictions.

>>José Cárdenas:
Do we have any Arizona-specific data that supported the need for this legislation?

>>John McComish:
The Arizona-specific data that we had showed that 74\% of the accidents with teenage drivers had other than the teenage driver, him or herself, being injured. So it's not only a bill to protect the driver, but even moreso, a bill that protects those other people that are on the road.

>>José Cárdenas:
Now, this legislation is going to make a lot of teenagers unhappy. What else will it be doing?

>>John McComish:
OK. Well, it will make the teenagers unhappy, but only for six months, and we think that's a modest reform. Where the teens, it will make them happy they can get their learner's permit a month earlier. So that should make them happy. They will have to spend an additional five hours learning as a learning driver. That's why we added the month to the learning time so they can get their learner's permit actually seven months before they turn 16. And they're required to spend 30 hours on the road with an experienced driver, five of those hours have to be nighttime.

>>José Cárdenas:
To get their driver's -- to get their learner's permit.

>>John McComish:
Yes. That's one aspect of it. To get their learner's permit, basically they have to spend more time practice driving.

>>José Cárdenas:
Then when they get their license, it's a new category. License category "G", as I understand.

>>John McComish:
That's correct. It has new restrictions. It's a graduated license. And one aspect of it is that the teens, for the first six months that they have their license, cannot drive between midnight and 5:00 AM. there are some exceptions to that. If there's an authorized school activity, or if they have an employment that's going to get them off work after midnight, they're allowed to do that. So, there's some intelligent exceptions to it. But it restricts the nighttime driving. And the other, really probably the most important aspect of the bill, it restricts the number of young people that can be in the car with a brand-new driver.

>>José Cárdenas:
Now, what's the rationale for the six months? Why that particular time period?

>>John McComish
OK. Well it, gives them time, more time -- they have six months before they get their driver's license as a learner driver, and then another six months, after they get their driver's license where they're a little more restricted. And we felt that that total of a year's time would just give them a little more time, a little more seasoning. And we were concerned with brand-new drivers having, you know, a car full of teenagers and the problems that that might cause. The data showed that it was an exponentially more dangerous the more teens that were in the car with the new driver. So we restricted it so there can be one teen along with the driver, and that does not -- and we don't exclude family members. So there can be siblings but in addition to that one other teen for six months until that driver gets enough experience under his or her belt.

>>José Cárdenas:
And then, as I understand, on the time -- on the hours of operation, the exceptions for going to work, sanctioned religious events and so.

>>John McComish:
Right, right, exactly.

>>José Cárdenas:
How is this going to be enforced?

>>John McComish:
OK. It will be enforced. It's like the seatbelt law. We won't have Law Enforcement pulling teenagers over because they look like they're young, but--

>>José Cárdenas:
They have to pull them over for something else.

>>John McComish:
They have to pull them over for another violation. Or -- then that would go into effect just like the seat belt law is now.

>>José Cárdenas:
Representative McComish, we have about 30 seconds left. Were you surprised the Governor signed this bill?

>>John McComish:
No, I was not. I was very pleased that the Governor signed it. I thought that she would. It's a modest step in the right direction. And it will save lives in the State of Arizona.

>>José Cárdenas:
Representative McComish, congratulations on your success, and thanks for joining us on "Horizon".

>>John McComish:
Thank you for having me.

>>José Cárdenas:
Every Monday evening, we feature two political experts going "One-on-One" on issues that affect the State. Tonight, talking about the budget, day labor and more, a partner at the law firm, "Coppersmith, Gordon, Schermer and Brockelman", Andy Gordon, and one of the founders of the Red Sky Group, a political consulting firm here in the Valley, Tom Dalton.

>>Andy Gordon:
Tom, why don't we talk first about the budget? What is it about the budget process that Mr. Weiers doesn't get? He cannot get a budget out of the House. Right now, they've got a budget in the Senate, where they've got 24-26 votes. President Bee has run a very open process in the Senate. He's included Democrats, Republicans, leadership. They've got a budget that the Governor can support. And what this looks like is Weiers is going to do what he always does is be there like a little boy who's all mad with his cheeks puffed out going "no, no, no, no," and ultimately they will pass the budget that Senate and Governor have agreed to. What's going on here?

>>Tom Dalton:
Well, I guess I'd like to throw it back at you. What is it about Governor Napolitano that she supports bipartisanship when it's a bill she wants to support? Now, I can't speak for Speaker Weiers, and I don't know when he gets a tantrum and does this. I will say this, though: he got three Democrats on board, and that's bipartisanship. He reached out. They got onboard. And the Governor simply excoriated them this past weekend. And I guess, you know, what's wrong with bipartisanship? I thought the Speaker was supposed to reach out to Democrats.

>>Andy Gordon:
The Speaker doesn't have enough votes to get his budget out of the House. He can't get 30 votes. With or without a couple of Democrats, he doesn't have a budget. He doesn't have a budget primarily because the things that everyone wants aren't in there. And whereas I said President Bee has done a great job. I mean, he's got funding in there for the Healthcare Group, which the House has zero for Healthcare Group, that denies 26,000 people in the State insurance. They've got teacher raises. They've got money for highways. The medical school is funded. The House doesn't even fund the Veterans' Home, where Weiers was screaming "bloody murder!". But there's no money there.

>>Tom Dalton:
Speaker Weiers is a lovable little fuzz ball. [laughs] OK. Onto day labor. Now, Governor Napolitano, she vetoed the Day Labor Bill. And I have to say, I'm usually very impressed by her ability to spin things. I think she's very good when it comes to the politics side of things, sometimes, during an election year. She's good at going down to the border, and standing behind President Bush and standing next to JD Hayworth and acting tough on illegal immigration. But this -- I was a bit surprised she vetoed this bill, and I'll tell you why. Because to me, it's not only a bill that's designed to deal with the illegal immigration problem in a, you know, in a very basic sense, but it's also a pro-business situation. When she says that she doesn't feel like this problem exists when you have day laborers who basically stand in front of supply stores and lobby for work, temporary work and this sort of thing, she says she doesn't believe this exists. And I guess what I want to ask the Governor is, you know, has she been to Home Depot? Has she taken a cruise down Ocotillo in the heart of Queen Creek and looked at the day laborers everywhere? I just wonder what world Janet Ren -- Janet Napolitano is living in, and --

>>Andy Gordon:
The interesting thing about this Day Labor Bill is, day labor is never mentioned in the bill. It's a phrase that's not -- this is a bill about people trying to find jobs. And I thought that was fundamentally what we're about. People who want jobs enough that they're willing to stand out in the heat in the morning, and try to get people to hire them. I think that's something we should be for.

>>Tom Dalton:
But -- but who? I have to ask, who is it that's standing out? I mean, these aren't MBA students standing out on the streets doing this.

>>Andy Gordon:
Obviously it's not MBAs. It's the people who want work so badly that they'll stand out in the hot morning and get it. Rather than discourage these people, we ought to be encouraging them. But, you know, we could probably go -- let's talk about something where we don't have to worry about numbers, where we don't have to worry about policy. Let's talk about the walking dead: Congressman Rick Renzi.

>>Tom Dalton:
Oh, yeah.

>>Andy Gordon:
It seems to me that big question on Congressman Renzi is, is he going to resign before his term is out? And if he is, who's going to take his place? Now, I'm hearing there's a huge amount of heat on him from the Republicans to step down early. But you're the Republican.

>> Tom Dalton:
Yes, I am. I don't know. I mean, he still is a sitting Congressman. It's a bit premature to start saying he's going to step down. I do think there's a lot of posturing going on. I think there's some good Republicans who will be ready to jump in should he resign. I don't know what he gains by resigning. I think the likely scenario may be that he stays in office and has a primary challenge, and he may well lose that primary. But I'm not sure what he gains by resigning. There are a lot of credible Republicans out there who are looking to run for his seat. You have Tim O'Halloran--

>>Andy Gordon:
Tom O'Halloran

>>Tom Dalton:
Tom O'Halloran. Steve Pearce, who I think is an interesting candidate. He's a GOP activist, and he's a rancher. He has a lot of money, and if this were to be a special election, the ability to raise money quickly is very important. But I think that those Republicans, we'll see what happens. We know that right now, he appears to be weathering the storm a little bit. I mean, Congressmen come under investigation all the time. Some survive, some of them don't. Bill Jefferson of Louisiana is still in office.

>>Andy Gordon:
He certainly is. What I'm hearing is -- and I don't do criminal defense work. But what I hear is that the biggest chip he has is his office. So he's not going to resign. It's not part of the deal to take care of the problem. But assuming that happens, I mean, you do. On the Democratic side, you got Steve Owens, you've got the head of DEQ, who knows that district extremely well. Ellen Simon, who ran last time, Ann Kirkpatrick, the Mayor of Winslow, a couple of more lawyers, maybe Harry Mitchell's brother. But I think the key is -- if there is a fast primary, because it's incredibly fast primary if it happens -- is the ability to raise money real fast.

>>Tom Dalton:
Absolutely.

>>Andy Gordon:
And on the Democratic side, that give as real advantage to Owens and Simon. Owens who's been shown in the past to raise a lot. And Simon who can write her own check.

>>Tom Dalton:
Jim Pederson who also --

>>Andy Gordon:
Jim's not going to run.

>>Tom Dalton:
He says he isn't, but he is a walking ATM Machine.

>>Andy Gordon:
He -- Jim's been very generous. But I'm pretty confident Jim's not going to run. Paul Johnson's name has been out there. I'm pretty confident Paul's not going to run. But it will be wide open.

>>Tom Dalton:
Well, we'll just have to wait and see. Well, what's next coming up? From what I'm hearing, as far as this whole budget showdown is going, it may not just be the three Democrats who bolt. Republican leadership is going to target several other Dems who they feel have a chance at getting the support. The House bipartisan plan as well, they do have three Democrats. I can't mention any names, but we'll see what happens.

>>Andy Gordon:
I'm sure those Democrats are very happy you don't mention their names, because my hunch is it never happened, and this is more of a Weiers bluff. I think the budget is the thing to watch. I think what we're going to see is the budget come out of the Senate first. I think it will pass with 24-25 votes. Three quarters of the Senate. It's just a matter of time until they roll over Weiers as they've already done in the past.

>>José Cárdenas:
Arizona State University has a new cosmic think-tank known as "Beyond: the center for fundamental concepts in science". Recently, the inaugural lecture for the center was Murray Gell-Mann. Gell-Mann won the 1969 Nobel Prize in Physics for identifying Quarks, the fundamental building blocks of the atom. He was also a Caltech colleague of fellow Nobel Prize winner, Richard Feynman, with whom he had a competitive relationship. Larry Lemmons spoke with Gell-Mann during the physicist's visit.

>>Larry Lemmons:
In your book "The Quark and the Jaguar", you were talking about the simple Quark being inside an atom, the complex the Jaguar running through the jungle. Could you sort of describe why that is applicable to Quantum Mechanics?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Just to show the contrast between an elementary building block of all matter. Each kind of elementary particle is a basic building block of matter everywhere in the universe. And comparatively simple in the sense that it doesn't take a long screed to describe it. The jaguar, however, is something with a great deal of specialized information about it. Coming from all sorts of accidents of evolution over a long period of time. And as an example of something quite complex.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Would you say that those two ideas and something that is simple, is that something that we yearn for in our descriptions of the universe? Something simple but we come across the complex constantly and don't always understand it?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Well, the fundamental laws, I believe to be simple. And I believe that complexity, as I think I argued in that book, complexity comes from the accumulation of accidents. Because the history of the universe is predetermined by the fundamental laws which I believe to be quite simple. And unimaginably long sequence of chance events or accidents. And the results of all those accidents are then incorporated into a complex entity like a jaguar.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Do you think that's why it's very difficult sometimes for people to understand Quantum Physics in the sense that you're looking at the Quark as being something very simple. But I think the general la person is going to look at Quantum Physics and find it very complex.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
In our everyday lives , we deal mostly with fairly heavy objects on the scale of atomic or nuclear objects. And for these heavy objects, the special teachers of Quantum Mechanics are not very conspicuous. So we're accustomed to so-called classical physics in our every day life, and to deal with the underlying Quantum Physics is not so easy for us because we're accustomed to the other. But another thing that's a problem is that most people who write and speak about Quantum Mechanics or teach it, even a lot of famous scientists, describe it in a way that's unnecessarily confusing. And it's just sad. It started back with the discoverers of Quantum Mechanics in the 1920's. Eisenberg and Borg and so on, formulated this "Copenhagen Interpretation" of Quantum Mechanics and certain ways of talking about it that makes it sound quite crazy. It isn't crazy. It's the way things are.

>>Larry Lemmons:
And Quantum Physics is growing too as well. I think in the beginning, they didn't know anything about superstring, for example. That is just something that has grown relatively recently.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Well, that's a conjecture, of course. It's a conjecture that is very bold and very exciting. And for thirty years or so, a number of theoreticians have tried to construct the long-desired Unified Theory of all of the elementary particles of all the forces of nature using a basis in Super String Theory. So far, they haven't succeeded in generating a complete, self-consistent theory that can be compared with nature and checked out. They haven't really done that yet.

>>Larry Lemmons:
So when you say Unified Field Theory, could you just talk a little bit about what that is.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Well, it would be a theory that unifies the descriptions of all the elementary particles.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Would explain all things?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
And no, it wouldn't explain all things. But we'll get to that in a moment. But it would describe the whole of elementary particle physics. The elementary particles are the forces of nature would all be completely described in an unified manner. That's what everybody has hoped for.

>>Larry Lemmons:
What are some of the tenets of that that might be unusual to the people, when they are talking about the Super String Theory.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Let me say one good thing about Super String Theory. It has a great advantage. If the long-desired Unified Theories of all the particles and all the forces is really found and is based on ideas from Super String Theory, it's one good thing. And that is that in the suitable approximation, it would predict Einstein's General Relativistic Theory of Gravitation,which would be something. Not only that, but it would predict it within Quantum Mechanics. It does, I should say, predict it within Quantum Mechanics. And without the preposterous infinite corrections that plague all the other attempts to unify General Relativity in Quantum Mechanics.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
That's one thing. He said a number of different things. Yes, he was not happy with it. It's funny because he contributed so much toward the original -- toward the early research that led to it. But when it finally came, he was unhappy with it. Part of that may have to do with what I was mentioning before, the fact that Quantum Mechanics is usually described in an unnecessarily confusing manner. And he may have been reacting to some degree to that.

>>Larry Lemmons:
In your own work, I believe you worked with Richard Feynman also?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
He had an office almost next door to mine for 33 years.

>>Larry Lemmons:
What was it like working with him? And some of the brilliant people that you've been around?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Well, it's great to work with brilliant people. And initially, Dick and I did a lot of nice things together. But I eventually decided that I would prefer not to do a lot of work with him. Because to him, everything seemed to be personal. It was a question of showing how bright he was. Not that anybody ever had any doubt that he was bright. He certainly didn't need to keep showing it. But somehow that was the main point. Whereas in my case, I wanted to get the answer. I wanted to see the answer. And I loved the idea of collaboration, because when I was a child, I had a big brother who taught me everything I knew. But it was very different. Dick wanted to compete always. So well, it was all right. I could compete. But sometimes it was not what I really wanted.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Could you--

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
He was a very great scientist, besides being a generator of anecdotes. I mean, most of his energy went into generating anecdotes about himself.

>>Larry Lemmons:
What was a Feynman anecdote?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
At the same time he was a great, great scientist. Oh, for example, in the very early days back in -- what was it, 1955 or '56 when I first arrived at Caltech, he would come in with a jacket and a shirt and tie, usually a white shirt. And then he would hang up the jacket in his office and take off the tie and hang that up. And then at lunchtime, he would go, sometimes, to the Faculty Club, where they required the jacket and the tie and the shirt. But he would leave his jacket and tie back in the office. When he arrive the at the Faculty Club, he would go to the cloak room and find one of the old, torn jackets and one of the loud ties that people had left there for those who showed up without that crucial equipment. Then he would put those on.

>>Larry Lemmons:
He preferred to wear those, probably.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Yes, that was one way of generating an anecdote.

>>Larry Lemmons:
Sure. Has it been gratifying over the years, that people hold you in such high esteem because of the work that you've done and the people who have come after you who have built on that work?

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
Well, it's very nice to be part of such a thing. If I had my life to live over, I think I would pay more attention to that, to building a school, for example. I have never done that, really. I have had some students who were terrific, and some of them famous. At least one of them won the Swedish Prize all by himself. But they didn't learn much of it from me. [laughter]

>>Larry Lemmons:
Well, Dr. Murray Gell-Mann, thank you so much for talking with us.

>>Murray Gell-Mann:
You're very welcome. It's a great pleasure. It's a great pleasure to talk with the PBS viewers.

>>Merry Lucero:
Our state is the fastest-growing in the nation. But ranks among the lowest for physicians to care for its population. We look at our doctor shortage, and efforts to solve the problem. Plus, it began as a dream of a resort hotel in exotic cactus garden but became a place once shrouded in mystery. Tovrea Castle, Tuesday at 7:00, on "Horizon".

>>José Cárdenas:
Wednesday, we'll learn more about tax incentives put into the state budget to help people save for college. Thursday, we'll see how people are learning to capitalize on the super bowl. Friday don't forget to join us for the Journalists' Roundtable. That's the Monday edition of "Horizon". I'm José Cárdenas. Thanks for sharing your evening with us.

>>Announcer:
If you have comments about "Horizon", please contact us at the addresses listed on your screen. Your name and comments may be used on a future edition of "Horizon".

>>Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by contributions from the Friends of Eight, members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.